The Hundley Dry Goods Company v. Linville
Decision Date | 09 January 1915 |
Docket Number | 18,618 |
Parties | THE HUNDLEY DRY GOODS COMPANY, Appellant, v. W. H. LINVILLE, Appellee |
Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Decided. January, 1915.
Appeal from Mitchell district court; RICHARD M. PICKLER, judge.
Judgment reversed and case remanded.
SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.
PROMISSORY NOTE--Evidence Insufficient to Show Fraud. There was no sufficient evidence of fraud in the procuring of the promissory note sued on to justify the submission to the jury of the question of fraud as determinative of the validity of the note.
C. L Kagey, and R. M. Anderson, both of Beloit, for the appellant.
Edgar Bennett, and Charles W. Clarke, both of Washington, for the appellee.
OPINION
The appellant, the Hundley Dry Goods Company, sold a bill of goods to the Linville Dry Goods Company amounting to over eight hundred dollars. Before any payments were made on the bill the Linville Dry Goods Company sold its entire stock of dry goods to one J. H. Huyck, who assumed and agreed to pay the wholesale bills outstanding, including the bill of appellant. Huyek paid nothing thereon, but sold the stock of goods to one C. W. Jolley, who in turn assumed and agreed to pay all the wholesale bills, including the bill of appellant, but neither did Jolley pay anything thereon.
Sometime thereafter Mr. Babb, a representative of the Hundley Dry Goods Company, came to W. H. Linville, who had been president of the Linville Dry Goods Company, when, as appears by the testimony of Linville in the transcript, the following colloquy occurred between Linville and Babb:
The court instructed the jury, in substance, that Linville was not personally responsible for the entire indebtedness of the Linville Dry Goods Company until he signed the note in question; that he was not responsible on the note if the same was procured by false representations made by the plaintiff's agent with the intent to cheat and defraud the defendant in the giving of the note and plaintiff's agent knew them to be false when made, and the defendant believed them to be true and relied thereon and was induced thereby to execute and deliver the note sued on when otherwise he would not have done so.
The note sued on was an unconditional promise to pay the amount specified therein at a certain time, and we can not agree that there was any sufficient evidence that Linville's signature was procured through fraud. Mr. Linville testified as above set forth, that Mr. Babb said ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Reaser
... ... Western Coal & Mining Company, with the provisions of ... chapter 222 of the Laws of 1911. Trial was ... ...
-
Hackett v. Dennison
... ... were interested in the Iroquois Mining Company which was ... engaged in mining operations at Joplin. The company ... president. [8 C. J., p. 214; Dry Goods Co. v ... Linville, 93 Kan. 634, 145 P. 876.] ... ... ...